Factors influencing water immersion during labour: qualitative case studies of six maternity units in the United Kingdom.
Case studies
Midwifery
Obstetrics
Qualitative research
Water birth
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Nov 2020
23 Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
10
09
2020
accepted:
12
11
2020
entrez:
24
11
2020
pubmed:
25
11
2020
medline:
18
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Water immersion during labour can provide benefits including reduced need for regional analgesia and a shorter labour. However, in the United Kingdom a minority of women use a pool for labour or birth, with pool use particularly uncommon in obstetric-led settings. Maternity unit culture has been identified as an important influence on pool use, but this and other possible factors have not been explored in-depth. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify factors influencing pool use through qualitative case studies of three obstetric units and three midwifery units in the UK. Case study units with a range of waterbirth rates and representing geographically diverse locations were selected. Data collection methods comprised semi-structured interviews, collation of service documentation and public-facing information, and observations of the unit environment. There were 111 interview participants, purposively sampled to include midwives, postnatal women, obstetricians, neonatologists, midwifery support workers and doulas. A framework approach was used to analyse all case study data. Obstetric unit culture was a key factor restricting pool use. We found substantial differences between obstetric and midwifery units in terms of equipment and resources, staff attitudes and confidence, senior staff support and women's awareness of water immersion. Generic factors influencing use of pools across all units included limited access to waterbirth training, sociodemographic differences in desire for pool use and issues using waterproof fetal monitoring equipment. Case study findings provide new insights into the influence of maternity unit culture on waterbirth rates. Access to pool use could be improved through midwives based in obstetric units having more experience of waterbirth, providing obstetricians and neonatologists with information on the practicalities of pool use and improving accessibility of antenatal information. In terms of resources, recommendations include increasing pool provision, ensuring birth room allocation maximises the use of unit resources, and providing pool room environments that are acceptable to midwives.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Water immersion during labour can provide benefits including reduced need for regional analgesia and a shorter labour. However, in the United Kingdom a minority of women use a pool for labour or birth, with pool use particularly uncommon in obstetric-led settings. Maternity unit culture has been identified as an important influence on pool use, but this and other possible factors have not been explored in-depth. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify factors influencing pool use through qualitative case studies of three obstetric units and three midwifery units in the UK.
METHODS
METHODS
Case study units with a range of waterbirth rates and representing geographically diverse locations were selected. Data collection methods comprised semi-structured interviews, collation of service documentation and public-facing information, and observations of the unit environment. There were 111 interview participants, purposively sampled to include midwives, postnatal women, obstetricians, neonatologists, midwifery support workers and doulas. A framework approach was used to analyse all case study data.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Obstetric unit culture was a key factor restricting pool use. We found substantial differences between obstetric and midwifery units in terms of equipment and resources, staff attitudes and confidence, senior staff support and women's awareness of water immersion. Generic factors influencing use of pools across all units included limited access to waterbirth training, sociodemographic differences in desire for pool use and issues using waterproof fetal monitoring equipment.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Case study findings provide new insights into the influence of maternity unit culture on waterbirth rates. Access to pool use could be improved through midwives based in obstetric units having more experience of waterbirth, providing obstetricians and neonatologists with information on the practicalities of pool use and improving accessibility of antenatal information. In terms of resources, recommendations include increasing pool provision, ensuring birth room allocation maximises the use of unit resources, and providing pool room environments that are acceptable to midwives.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33228569
doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03416-7
pii: 10.1186/s12884-020-03416-7
pmc: PMC7682119
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
719Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 16/149/01
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Health Technology Assessment Programme
ID : 16/149/01
Références
Women Birth. 2018 Jun;31(3):184-193
pubmed: 29037484
Eur J Midwifery. 2018 Jul 12;2:7
pubmed: 33537568
HERD. 2017 Jan;10(2):81-100
pubmed: 27694185
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2020 Mar;65(2):216-223
pubmed: 31489975
Midwifery. 2020 Mar;82:102622
pubmed: 31951904
Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2015 May 31;17(5):e18373
pubmed: 26082849
Midwifery. 2019 Dec;79:102541
pubmed: 31581000
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 May 16;5:CD000111
pubmed: 29768662
Midwifery. 2018 Jan;56:9-16
pubmed: 29024869
Birth. 2018 Dec;45(4):416-423
pubmed: 29900579
Midwifery. 2016 Feb;33:73-81
pubmed: 26549568
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2005 Jun;26(2):127-33
pubmed: 16050538
Women Birth. 2019 Jun;32(3):246-254
pubmed: 30244838
Women Birth. 2019 Jun;32(3):255-262
pubmed: 30196039
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 20;15(10):e0239311
pubmed: 33079940
Women Birth. 2021 Mar;34(2):e178-e187
pubmed: 32144024
Women Birth. 2013 Jun;26(2):105-9
pubmed: 23182130
J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2012 Mar 01;13(1):45-9
pubmed: 24627674
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005 May;17(5):357-61
pubmed: 16147851
J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2017 Oct/Dec;31(4):303-316
pubmed: 28520654
Birth. 2020 Mar;47(1):98-104
pubmed: 31820494
Women Birth. 2020 Mar;33(2):186-192
pubmed: 31054879
Birth. 2009 Jun;36(2):159-66
pubmed: 19489810
Midwifery. 2018 Apr;59:27-38
pubmed: 29353689
Midwifery. 2019 Dec;79:102554
pubmed: 31610360
Women Birth. 2017 Oct;30(5):431-441
pubmed: 28529087
Midwifery. 2019 Dec;79:102547
pubmed: 31610362
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2020 Feb;42(2):150-155
pubmed: 31843289
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2014 May-Jun;59(3):286-319
pubmed: 24850284